1. Summary Box

• Case Title: Joginder Singh v/s State of Haryana
• Case Number: Civil Writ Petition No. 6562 of 1995
• Decision Date: 12.12.1997
• Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court
• Bench: Single Judge Bench
• Final Verdict: The High Court struck down the stipulation under Rule 3.17-A(f) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (Volume II) restricting contingency-paid service to half for the purpose of qualifying service, condoned the interruption in service not attributable to the petitioner, and held that his service from 24.10.1979 to 31.05.1993 was liable to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
• Key Principle: Service rendered on a contingency-paid or daily wage basis, when continuous and not interrupted due to the employee’s fault, cannot be arbitrarily reduced to half for determining qualifying service, and breaks in service beyond the employee’s control are liable to be condoned under pension rules.

2. Background & Facts

• 11.03.1966- Petitioner appointed as Ticket Verifier on daily wage basis.
• 06.07.1976- Terminated from service.
• 24.10.1979- Re-appointed as Ticket Verifier.
• 13.07.1981- Services dispensed.
• 18.07.1981- Re-employed and continued till superannuation on 31.05.1993.
  Upon superannuation, the petitioner applied for the release of his retiral benefits, and the matter was submitted before the Accountant General, Haryana. However, the claim was rejected primarily on two grounds. First, that while working on daily wages, the petitioner was receiving salary from contingency funds and, therefore, only half of the period of service rendered from 29.07.1981 to 31.03.1987 could be treated as qualifying service. Secondly, it was observed that the petitioner’s service up to the year 1993 did not amount to ten years of qualifying service, thereby disentitling him from pensionary benefits. This rejection was subsequently impugned.

3. Arguments Raised by the Petitioner

The petitioner assailed the rejection on the ground that the stipulation contained in Rule 3.17-A(f) of Punjab Civil Service Rules (Volume II) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), insofar as it provided that only half the service paid from contingencies would be counted as qualifying service, was arbitrary and liable to be struck down.

It was further contended that the breaks in service, particularly for the period from 14.07.1981 to 29.07.1981, were not occasioned due to any lapse or fault on the part of the petitioner. Consequently, such interruption in service ought to be condoned in terms of Rule 4.23 of the Rules, thereby entitling him the benefit of continuity of service for the purpose of pension.

4. Arguments Raised by the Respondents

The respondents justified the rejection by placing reliance on Rule 3.17-A(f) of the Rules, arguing that a person paid from contingency funds is treated as a daily wager and, as such, his employment is irregular in nature. On this premise, the competent authority assessed the relevant period of service as qualifying only to the extent of one-half for the purposes of pension.

It was also contended that the petitioner did not possess the requisite period of qualifying service necessary for the grant of pension and, therefore, was not entitled to pensionary benefits under the applicable rules.

5. Decision

The Court held that the words “half the period of service of such persons paid from contingencies” occurring in sub-clause (i) of clause (f) of Rule 3.17-A of the Rules were bad in law and liable to be struck down.

It was further observed that the break in service had not been occasioned due to any fault attributable to the petitioner and was beyond his control. Accordingly, the interruption in service was condoned.

In the light of the above, it was held that the petitioner was entitled to have his service from 24.10.1979 to 31.05.1993 counted as qualifying service for the purposes of pension.

6. Reasoning & Analysis

The Court reproduced Rule 3.17-A(f) of the Rules and analysed the method prescribed for determining qualifying service. Sub-clause (i) of clause (f) provides that persons paid from contingencies are entitled to count their service as qualifying service, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions laid down therein.

The admitted position was that the petitioner had worked for approximately twenty-three years in the respondent department, save for two breaks which were not attributable to any default on his part. The Court emphasised that the stipulation that only half the period of service is to be counted must be read in conjunction with the subsequent conditions under the same rule.

A cumulative reading of the rule indicates that a person can claim qualifying service if he has:
(a) worked as a whole-time employee against a job for which a regular post could have been sanctioned;
(b) received payment of salary on a monthly or daily basis; and
(c) rendered service paid from contingencies in a continuous and uninterrupted manner.

Since the petitioner fulfilled these conditions, he was held entitled to the benefit of counting his service as qualifying service.

The Court further observed that the stipulation in sub-clause (i) of Rule 3.17-A of the Rules that only half the period of service is to be counted as qualifying service was arbitrary and devoid of any rational basis. In this regard, reliance was placed on Kesar Chand v/s State of Punjab and others, 1988(5) SLR 27 while holding that such artificial classification in computing qualifying service lacks a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

Additionally, while reproducing Rule 4.23 of the Rules and relying upon the principle laid down in Kartar Singh v/s State of Haryana, 1996(1) AIJ 318 : 1996(2) SCT 11, the Court noted that an interruption in service which is beyond the control of the employee is liable to be condoned. Applying this principle, the interruption caused due to termination and subsequent re-engagement was condoned.